On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 3:42 PM, John C Klensin <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com>
wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
And that helps identify a third risk. How relevant it is
depends on one's perspective and understanding of reality but
that risk is:
3) People will conclude that these various kludges are
actually medium-term solutions and will put resources
into them that would have gone into deploying IPv6
instead.
As soon as you say "folks are going to need to go to the trouble
and expense of developing and deploying replacements for a lot
of installed-base IPv4 software, the resources involved become
significant and there are tradeoffs with other ways in which
those resources could be invested.
It is quite likely that resources will be used on prolonging IPv4
if there is a way of doing that, like putting this last netblock into
use. That just put IPv6 even further off and cause even more
trouble down the road.
However, if this proposal goes through and that last netblock
are assigned to use, how long will it take before anyone ask
the following question:
Why haven't that last netblock been put to use by the RIR earlier
and with that given us more time to prepare for IPv6?
--
Roger Jorgensen |
rogerj(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com | - IPv6 is The Key!
http://www.jorgensen.no ; | roger(_at_)jorgensen(_dot_)no
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf